Posted: Jul 24, 2013 12:50 am
by RealityRules
spin wrote:Paul

Working from Galatians I have attempted to read the text as literally as possible in an effort to understand what it says, rather than what later interpreters have said it says. The result is that Paul argues against prior Jesus believers, indicating that his Jesus knowledge instead comes from revelation (which doesn't require any supernatural event given todays understandings of psychology). He points to people in Jerusalem who show no knowledge of the gospel Jesus and who advocate torah observance, which Paul's Jesus has abrogated. Paul's writings have been heavily reworked, as can be seen with the attacks on his personality and insertion of later established church oriented notions and interests, so his writings cannot be read slavishly as many christian interpreters tend to do.

"Paul's writings have been heavily reworked, as can be seen with the attacks on his personality and insertion of later established church oriented notions and interests, so his writings cannot be read slavishly as many christian interpreters tend to do" ..
.. yet you have read them slavishly!, and go on to do so ....

spin wrote:Pauline language

Paul was writing in a literary context that was essentially pre-christian, so his terms and notions are not the settled notions of an established religion. On the christian chronology Paul was writing 20 years or less after the reputed time of Jesus. There is no time assuming Paul was not the initiator of christian rhetoric for dedicated terminology to have developed. When he uses terms they must be seen as based on earlier ones, such as his use of "assembly" (usually translated as the christian "church") or a constructed phrase like "in christ". There is just no christian literary precedents for Paul's language, so it can only come from what non-christian vocabulary that existed prior to his writing. That means we need to read him freshly, without christianizing his writings, if we hope to understand what he is talking about, though this is complicated by later reworkings. I'm fond of the title of an article by J.C. O'Neill, "Paul Wrote Some of All, but Not All of Any".

"On the christian chronology Paul was writing 20 years or less after the reputed time of Jesus" ... yet there are plenty of arguments that is not true!!

neilgodfrey wrote:
RealityRules wrote:.
People read the Paul documents as if they are historical records - to do so seems a big assumption

see http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/questioning-the-authenticity-of-the-pauline-documents-t27743.html#p1106613


Another argument is that the Paulines were the product of a school rather than an individual. Not unlike the way the OT Prophets were composed according to "minimalists" like Philip Davies.


dejuror wrote:.... it is actually corroborated in the Canon and by Apologetics that the Pauline Corpus was LATE and that Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed.

1. The author of Acts writing some time AFTER the Gospels knew NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus. Read Acts.

2. Apologetics writing in the 3rd and 4th century claimed there was a tradition that Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed. See Commentary on Matthew 1 and Church History 6.25.

3. An apologetic source, the Muratorian Canon, claimed the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John. See the Muratorian Canon.

4. Letters to place Paul in the 1st century at the time of Nero have been deduced to be forgeries. See the Paul/Seneca letters.

5. In the writings of Justin Martyr c 150 CE it would appear that he knew "details" of the story of Jesus found in the Gospels but knew of NONE of the "details" of the Pauline post-resurrection visits. See the writings of Justin.

6. It has been deduced that many letters of the Pauline Corpus were composed AFTER c 70 CE.

7. It has been deduced that the Pauline Corpus has multiple unknown authors.

8. Aristides did not acknowledge Paul at all as the one who evangelized the Roman Empire . See Aristides' Apology

9. Arnobius did NOT acknowledge that Paul preached to the heathen. See Arnobius' Against the Heathen"

10. In Minucius Felix Octavius there is no mention of the entire Pauline Corpus. See Minucius Felix's Octavius

11. The first Apologetic source to mention the Pauline Corpus by name claimed Jesus was crucified under Caudius c 48-50 CE or about 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius. See Irenaeus "Against Heresies".

12. 1st century Jewish and Roman writers show no influence at all of the Pauline Messiah and Gospel.